Dicks, indeed.

What a joke, just like prohibition stoppd people from drinking. Cocaine and heroin are illegal, people still use them. I could go on and on....

But Jeff, as a progressive, don't you know that it isn't about results, it's only about feelings. And if suspending gun sales for a time makes the corporate types feel better, and if not seeing guns on the shelves makes the customers feel better, then the problem has been solved.

But it's interesting that you snidely mention the crosses on St Peter's lawn. First, your snark presumes that the church and it's members don't do things to improve "the lot of the women who tend to have abortions" (apparently you know what each member performs in the way of charity donating and working, and I'm quite certain you've done exhaustive research into the destination of the thousands of pounds of food that the food pantry collects and distributes). But secondly, and at least as importantly, is the disposability of human life that those crosses represent. I'm sure you're quite well schooled in the relationship between gun violence / mass killings / cultural rot, so I won't bother you with details.

Guns are a big problem. (Ok; hit me now with the "guns aren't the problem, people are" retort.) Just because we can't fix every issue with society, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. I applaud Dick's move here.

This will have about as much effect on gun crime as if they had chosen to suspend sales of baseball gloves.
(But there are enough dimwits out there who will fall for meaningless pandering that it might positively impact their bottoms line - which is, of course, the main goal)

I think we are misguided in trying to attribute import to the actions of a retailer. We can/should assume that every free market participant (like Dick's) will act in their own, economic self-interest. There is a serious conversation that needs to be had about firearm availability, but...in my opinion... such actions by a retail store are merely a barometer of the general mood of the community.

Patrick,

You equate an accident or a heart attack with a mass murder of children? I cannot believe that you are serious.

Since I can't reply to a reply, I'll just have to post down here.

Ignoring polls? Change the subject much?

Never heard anyone call the President a "retard". If you're referring to Ms Coulter, get back to me when it's someone I respect, much less care about. She's a media figure, and filling a 24 hour news cycle is difficult.

As for the rest of your rant, it's just that. More typing from the Department of Flotsam and Jetsam. Gratuitous attacks on hundreds of generous churchgoers, by a man who thinks that volunteering in a food pantry pales to the incredible public service performed by a bombthrowing opinion columnist.

And Jeff Ward, like all good liberals, gets to decide what is "really doing something" about the problem. Because somebody working two jobs to keep their house and who only can afford to give a can of beans is less worthy than someone who volunteers, or who strings together barely coherent strings of words on subjects he doth not understand.

Merry Christmas, Jeff!

Jeff, sometime a discussion becomes so ridiculous and pointless that there is no point in attempting to continue it.

Colin,

The problem is that conservatives love to set the standard, but they almost never live up to it - and Patrick is a perfect example.

Jeff

I understand and agree but I was thinking more along the lines of the incredibly strained rationalizations that so many bring forth in order to deny the obvious: if no one had a gun no one would get shot.

But then, having worked with alcoholics and addicts for four decades I'm used to people whose thinking depends upon "rational lies".

Colin, my point was if no one had a car, then no one would die in car accidents, and if no one ate a Big Mac, then less people would die of non-hereditary hypercholesterolemia-related heart disease. And neither of those are Constitutional issues.

And what I do or don't live up to is not anything a man of your limited understanding of how the world works could possibly evaluate, Jeff. I'll put up my public service record against yours any day.

But we've gone far afield from Jeff's original whinetorial, complaining that Dick's has stripped the shelves of parts his son needs to fix his projectile-firing weapon of entertainment.

Patrick,

I love it when a reader goes this far out of their way to prove my original point.

Thank you!

How about something like this:

To obtain a license to own a firearm one must be of age, pass a rigorous course on safety, security, law, responsibility, and practical use. Also a thorough background check and psyc, exam.

All guns will have a title, just as cars do. The title must be transferred whenever ownership of a gun changes.

Titles, licenses, and ownership are databased. Guns and their owners can be identified quickly.

Owners will be held legally responsible for the security of weapons that they own. If a gun is stolen, lost, or goes missing the owner may be held legally liable if it can be demonstrated that the gun was not properly secured. If an unsecured, missing gun is later used in a crime the owner may face a civil suit by those injured as well.

Any unlicensed person caught with a gun would face serious prison time; say 15-20 years. Anyone carrying a gun during the commission of a violent crime would face life.

Result: licensed owners can own any firearms that they wish but will be held legally responsible if they fall into the wrong hands.

Unlicensed persons face such stiff punishment for possession that only the truly stupid or the deranged would take the chance.

It would take several years for a plan like this to be implemented and become effective but I bet that it would seriously lower gun deaths in the US without violating the Constitution, which calls for regulation.

TV

The point here is that according to reports Lanza's mother did not adequately secure her guns and he had little trouble getting ahold of them. I think that if security is made a very serious issue with very real, enforced penalties, she might have secured them and Newtown would never have happened. By the same token, by registering titles so that ownership can be tracked it is likely that many of the guns purchased in states that are lax in their controls and transported to northern cities for illegal sale might not end up in criminal hands simply because the owner of record will face serious penalties. Also, by making illegal possession a serious offense with a very long prison term mandatory I would guess the incentive to have a gun might be diminished.

However, you may be right. My proposal might not work. In that case, if we wish to end this needless and senseless slaughter I just guess that we will need to follow the proven example of Canada, England, and Australia and pretty much ban private ownership of guns and ammunition altogether.

I am certainly open to a better suggestion but I would beg you not to insult our intelligence by claiming that having even more guns out there will make us all safer.

If you are at all familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America then you will know the following:

The Second Amendment was ratified in December of 1791. At that time there was no standing army in our new Country and we faced direct potential threats from English, French, and Spanish colonies on or near our borders, as well as the Native Americans that we were displacing. Militias made up of local citizens were our only means of defense.

The weapons of the time were single shot muzzle loaders that required at least 30 seconds to reload for a second shot. They were not terribly powerful nor were they accurate by today's standards.

Today we have the most powerful standing army in the world to protect us from any potential invader. I need not detail the difference in the lethality of the guns available.

The Founders knew full well that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they created would not be adequate to meet all future circumstances. For that reason they included Article V which provides the procedure for amending the Constitution as desired in order to adapt it to meet future needs. They could not possibly have foreseen the problems that would arise 200 years later as a result of the Second Amendment, but they did foresee the need to make changes.

Aside from the Bill of Rights we have made seventeen such changes so far. I think that it is well oast time to make another concerning firearms in America.

All of the Constitution are open for review and discussion but if you will look at history you will find that political and religious discord was at least as widespread and "dangerous" ideas were as common in 1797 as today.

Indeed, the idea of democracy itself was considered to be extremely dangerous by many back then. The representatives of several states wanted very much to establish a "State Religion" in order to insure morality and control. The First Amendment was almost a deal breaker for some. If he has so wished, George Washington might well have become the Emperor of the USA. There were many who wished him to do so.

Nothing about the fact that ideas considered "dangerous" by some and "progressive" by others has changed in the last 200 years and the Founders were wise beyond belief to enshrine our rights to free speech and choice regarding religion.

But then, while you may hate what I say or the religious choices that I make they are not very likely to kill you.

However, I have said what I have to say here on this subject. Anything further would be useless repetition so I'm going to dropout of the discussion at this point. Thanks for all the insights that you have provided. I learned a lot.